Saturday, December 30, 2006

As you can see from Bob's post earlier today (re: Henry Hyde), the LTI blog has a new contributor!

Bob Perry is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy and later he served as an aviator in the U.S. Marine Corps. During his time of service, he completed the Marine Corp's most challenging aviation training to become a tactical instructor pilot for the AV-8B Harrier Jump Jet.

Bob's also a thinker. Along the way, he earned a Masters Degree in Christian Apologetics (Highest Honors) at Biola University.

After 8 years in the Corps, Bob switched cockpits to pursue a career in commercial aviation. He now serves as a Captain for a major U.S. airline....and a welcome contributor to this blog!

Pro-Lifers will be missing one of their greatest public advocates next month when the new Congress returns to Washington. Henry Hyde (R, Illinois 6) chose not to run for reelection. Hyde has served for 32 years in the U.S. Congress and has been one the pro-life movement’s staunchest advocates.

As Scott has argued here many times, the ways to achieve the pro-life agenda are many and varied. Sometimes they are not as obvious as they may seem and sometimes the politicians who can help achieve them are not the most obvious choices. We wrestle with these issues in the real world and must make our choices accordingly – even if it means having to swallow some pretty tough pills to back some less than optimal candidates along the way. Henry Hyde disappointed many of us when some of his moral failings came to light after the Clinton impeachment debacle. This proved nothing more than that Hyde, like the rest of us, is a fallible human being. But when it comes to advancing pro-life issues, few can hold a candle to him.

Like many social conservatives, Hyde started out as a Democrat, became disillusioned with the left-wing agenda of that party, and switched to the Republican Party as a result. In a recent issue of National Review, Hyde admits that, like many of us in our younger days, he “had never really thought much about abortion.” But that all changed when a fellow Illinois state congressman asked him to co-sponsor a bill to liberalize Illinois abortion law. Hyde considered the legislation by reading a book: The Vanishing Right to Live, by Charles Rice “[and] became convinced that abortion was evil.” Hyde’s subsequent self-education on the issue led to the passage of the Hyde Amendment in 1977, a bill that, by the “fairly conservative estimate” of The National Right to Life Committee’s Douglas Johnson, “has saved 1 million human lives in the 30 years that it has been in effect.”

Henry Hyde’s success in this area can be traced to a couple self-evident truths on which he based his opposition to the so-called “pro-choice” agenda. In his 1984 rebuttal to a Mario Cuomo speech at the University of Notre Dame, Hyde condemned …

the rise of militant secular-separationist perspective on the constitutional questions that seek to rule religiously based values “out of order” in the public arena

and specifically targeted “abortion liberty” as …

a profoundly narrow-minded, illiberal position; it constricts rather than expands, the scope of liberty properly understood (emphasis mine)

On behalf of those million human beings he helped save, I would like to thank Henry Hyde for his commitment to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Would that there were more politicians with the same principled conviction.

This other post by Doug Groothuis inspired by the choice for Time's person of the year acknowledges some issues when it is all about you:

You matter to us. You do. You are worth it. It's all about You. You can do it. You have done it. You can have it. You have it all. You will do it. We know You. You are special. Everyone will like You; it is guaranteed. You deserve the best. In fact, You are the best. You for You, in You, ever You, world with You, Amen.

We are developing a culture in which our young people more and more are being led to believe that life is all about them. Our personal entertainment options are now increasingly personalized and geared towards, of course, us.

However, some of the most rewarding experience in a person's life occur when it is not about us at all. In fact, parenting could be described as the "anti-you". Most of "you" takes a back seat to the needs of another human being. Yet parenting can be the most rewarding experience in our lifetimes.

Of course, it makes you wonder if many of this generation will look back like the mother in this parody. The biggest rewards of this life are times in which it is not all about me.

Friday, December 29, 2006

In a series of refusals and affirmations, Douglas Groothius says perfectly what needs to be done in 2007:

1. I refuse to waste time on trivia: that means 95% of popular culture. Instead, I will center on study, teaching, preaching, writing, and mentoring.

2. I refuse to accept the anti-intellectualism (and even misology) of American evangelicalism. Instead I will teach, preach, and write in ways that demand concentration; I will write what ignites the intellect; I will preach as deeply as I can and dare you to come with me.

3. I refuse to dumb down anything, anywhere, any time. Instead I will inspire people to rise to the occasion intellectually.

4. I refuse to join those Christians who seldom read or reflect on the Bible. Instead I will read it, reread it, study it, memorize it, and meditate on it. I will try to incorporate it increasingly into my thoughts and words.

5. I refuse to seek no more than "personal peace and affluence" (as Francis Schaeffer put it thirty years ago) for my life. Instead, I will contribute to Kingdom endeavors here and abroad.

7. I refuse to ever play a video game. Instead, I will look for Kingdom opportunities in the land of the living.

8. I refuse to waste time on small talk. Instead, I will endeavor to make all my words count for eternity.

9. I refuse to speak in cliches or outworn adjectives ("awesome," "cool," etc.). Instead I will try to find the right word for the right thought. Or say nothing.

10. I refuse to pose. Instead, I will live.

11. I refuse to accept the de facto deism of so many evangelicals who do not seek God for supernatural manifestations of Christ's Kingdom (healing, signs and wonders). Instead, I will seek (but never presume upon) God's miraculous, supernatural presence in this dark world.

12. I refuse to confine the Kingdom of God to America. Instead, I will keep an eagle eye for ways I can bless, encourage, and edify Christ-followers around the world.

13. I refuse to consign Christian women to second-class status in the church, the home, or the world. Instead, I will support and encourage gifted women to serve God in accord with their gifts and opportunities.

14. I refuse to preach only to the choir, to limit my ministry to the church, Christian school, parachurch, and so on. Instead, I will in every way possible seek to inject Christian truth creatively into culture through my writing and teaching, to colonize alien lands with truths not normally found there.

15. I refuse to follow any trend simply because it is a trend. Instead, I will seek to discern the hand of God in the world.

None of this can be achieved in my own power: "Yet not I but Christ who lives in me."

Thursday, December 28, 2006

I've been a bit busy with other projects, and Scott's been busy blowin up the blog (just kidding Scott), but I've recently been able to continue to research Plan B emergency contraceptive. This study right here is the fourth one that has been unable to show a decrease in pregnancy rates with a group with increased access to emergency contraception. This is pretty amazing, and yet I don't believe anyone has reported on it. Here is an excerpt from the abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To assess how a strategy to maximize access to emergency contraceptive pills would affect rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. METHODS: Sexually active women, 14-24 years old, were randomly assigned to two methods of access to emergency contraceptive pills: increased access (two packages of pills dispensed in advance with unlimited resupply at no charge) or standard access (pills dispensed when needed at usual charges). Participants were followed for 1 year to assess incidence of pregnancy, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and trichomonas. RESULTS: The numbers of women enrolled in the increased and standard access groups were 746 and 744, respectively. More than 93% of participants completed a full year of follow-up. The incidence of pregnancy was similar in both groups (increased access group: 9.9/100 woman years, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.7-12.6; standard access group: 10.5/100 woman years, 95% CI 8.2-13.2). Aggregate rates of gonorrhea, chlamydia, and trichomonas were also similar in the two groups (increased access group: 6.9/100 woman years, 95% CI 5.1-9.1; standard access group: 7.6/100 woman years, 95% CI 5.7-9.9). The increased access group used emergency contraceptive pills substantially more often and sooner after coitus than the standard access group. No other differences were noted between groups in self-reported measures of sexual behavior and contraceptive use. CONCLUSION: This intensive strategy to enhance access to emergency contraceptive pills substantially increased use of the method and had no adverse impact on risk of sexually transmitted infections. However, it did not show benefit in decreasing pregnancy rates.

In other words, having greater access to EC allowed women to use it more often than standard access, yet there was no statistically significant decrease in pregnancy rates within the two groups.

Friday, December 22, 2006

(NOTE: Because the LTI Blog was accidently deleted on December 22, we are reposting recent entries. While the text from some of those entries was recovered, the original links to the posts are lost, along with all reader comments. We apologize for this error and hope you will comment on those posts we are able to restore.)

The dialogue below is a reconstruction by me.

BLITZER: What did you think of Barack Obama?

WARREN: He's an amazing man in many ways and I'm glad to work with him fighting AIDS.

BLITZER: Do you think he’s got it? In other words, he’s got that potential like so many other presidential prospects, to be the president of the United States?

WARREN: It depends what you mean by "got it," Wolf. Does he have charisma and the incredible ability to connect with people? Absolutely. He's definitely got that. But charisma alone does not qualify him for the presidency. You must also weigh how Senator Obama will use that gift of communication, for good or for evil? Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln were both incredible communicators and they used their gifts to promote justice for the weakest and most vulnerable members of the human family. Lincoln spoke on behalf of slaves and Reagan for the innocent unborn. Both awakened people to important first principles found in the Declaration of Independence, namely, that humans have certain rights by nature that no government can legitimately take away. The right to liberty and the right to life are two of those basic rights. And though I consider Senator Obama a friend and value our relationship, he's yet to recognize that all human beings have a right to life. That's why, I believe, he's mistakenly voted to allow partial-birth abortion and destructive embryo research. That's regrettable, because in the past we used to discriminate on the basis of skin color and gender, as Senator Obama knows firsthand. Now, however, with elective abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, we discriminate on the basis of size, level of development, location, and dependency. We've simply swapped one form of discrimination for another. I'm hopeful Senator Obama will come to see that.

BLITZER: But what if he doesn't agree with you on abortion or embryonic stem cell research? Those are very divisive issues. Won't that hurt your friendship?

WARREN: As a Christian, I should tolerate people and treat them with respect even when I think their ideas mistaken. I don't have to pretend that all positions on a controversial issue are equally valid to model love and friendship. But at the same time, I cannot remain silent when a friend--especially one in leadership--holds positions fundamentally at odds with a Christian worldview. And taking human life without justification is not consistent with that worldview. So, yes, I must speak out on that.

BLITZER: Even if it offends your friend?

WARREN: Wolf, the very idea of tolerating people presupposes you think they are wrong on some matters moral and intellectual. Otherwise, I'm not tolerating people--I'm agreeing with them! Here’s the key point: Just because I disagree with Senator Obama's support for elective abortion does not mean I can't respect him as a friend and work with him on cures for AIDS. In fact, the same principle that drives me to work with him on AIDS compels me to oppose him on abortion--namely, that all human life should be respected and cared for. What's so hard about that?

BlITZER: Do you think Senator Obama has good character?

WARREN: Yes, and that's why I ultimately hope he'll reconsider his position on the right to life. Look, he's got a whole lot right already. He understands that discrimination is wrong. He knows that skin color and gender are lousy reasons for denying justice to vulnerable human beings. He's got a heart of compassion for the weak. I just wish he’d apply that same heart of compassion to the unborn members of the human family.

BLITZER: Ultimately, this is a partisan issue, isn’t it? Surely you know that most Republicans favor restrictions on abortion while most Democrats want it to remain legal. At the end of the day, aren’t you asking him to behave like a Republican?

WARREN: No, I’m asking him to be a better Democrat. Sadly, my friend Senator Obama believes human beings that are in the wrong location or have the wrong level of development do not deserve the protection of law. This view is elitist and exclusive. It violates the principle that once made the Democratic Party great: its basic commitment to protect the weakest and most vulnerable members of the human family. I want him to return to that principle and uphold justice for all human beings. He doesn’t have to change parties to do that.

Note: Thanks to Greg Koukl for wording on the tolerance section above.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Both the white supremacist and pro-life view require that a genetic fact (respectively being white and being human) is crucial for deciding who should be protected. On the other hand both the anti-racist and pro-choice positions say that genetic facts are irrelevant and that what is important is the characteristics of beings as beings, ie that they have some kind of consciousness to violate. This does not include very early zygotes.

To argue otherwise asserts that the mere genetic fact of humanity is determinative, and this is exactly what white supremacists argued (and argue) about the genetic fact of being white.

First, Pejar asserts that pro-lifers require a "genetic" fact to decide who should be protected. I believe he is repeating the oft-repeated straw man that we believe human value is based on an entity that possesses human DNA. This is simply wrong. In fact, I just removed 4 wisdom teeth that had the "genetic fact" of human DNA. One can argue that the human DNA in those wisdom teeth is more "human" than a child with Down syndrome, which has an extra chromosome. However, pro-lifers do not value the tooth more than the child. It is not the "genetic fact" of humanity that matters, but the biologic certainty that comes with a living organism of the species homo sapiens that gives us value.

Second, Pejar asserts that white supremacists also depend on the "genetic fact" of race for their discrimination. This is simply wrong. White supremacists base their discrimination on physical appearance, not on genetic content. Just like those who look at an early human embryo and claim that it isn't human because it does not "look like us", they practice their foul discrimination based on appearance.

Third, from his post on the topic, look at the things that Pejar believe are more better determinants of human worth than membership in our species:

People recognised that protection was needed because of the ability to suffer and feel pain or to grow and flourish. This is common to all colours and unifies our conception of those worthy of moral consideration.

Maybe they didn't mention this at Oxford Law School, but aren't the characteristics of being able to feel pain also genetically determined? There is DNA that codes for the whole complex in our nervous system which allows us to experience and feel pain, and the development of each and every one is controlled by human DNA. By his own criteria, the characteristics he asserts are important are just as genetically determined as skin color. They are just as much a "genetic fact", using his vocabulary.

Fourth, I know a bit about this because right now there are 6 human beings walking around not feeling pain from surgery because I have temporarily changed their ability to feel pain by the use of local anesthetic. By Pejar's criterion, I have somehow changed their human worth and deservedness for protection as a result. Furthermore, I have earlier today effected their humanness even more by rendering them unconscious during the surgery. This makes no sense, but is inevitable using his criteria for human value.

Lastly, the pro-abortion choice view uses arbitrary criteria to decide which human beings live and which die. The truth of the matter is that the brain of a newborn is far more similar to the brain of a third trimester fetus than an adult. It is more similar in appearance, size, and function. Yet Pejar asserts that it is OK to kill the fetus but (I assume) not OK to kill the newborn. This is discriminatory.

The pro-life view is open to all. All human beings, as beings, are worthy of protection and should not be killed because they do not fit into an arbitrary criterion that gives then value. That is the true liberal, non-discriminatory position.

BLITZER: Do you think he’s got it? In other words, he’s got that potential like so many other presidential prospects, to be the president of the United States?

WARREN: I think he does.

BLITZER: Because?

WARREN: I think he has good character. I think both Sam Brownback and Barack Obama — the reason I invited them both, first, they’ll tell you the truth. They’re not just going to beat around the bush. They’ll tell you what they believe. And I appreciate that.

Second, they’re men of civility. And I’m so tired of the rudeness we’ve got in our society where people are just mean to each other. We need to return to civility, which says, I treat you with respect even if I violently disagree with you. That we’ve lost the “civil” in civilization.

Friday, December 15, 2006

The debate over incremental anti-abortion laws, versus working toward the goal of stopping abortion altogether, is a necessary crisis of conscience for pro-lifers. Its resolution will determine the future of abortion in America.

Not only is this a logical fallacy, it is a particularly sloppy and mean-spirited one. It should be clear that every one who is pro-life is attempting to stop abortion altogether. This issue in not one of goals, but of tactics. The question is: what is the quickest and most effective way to end the evil of abortion?

If the "future of abortion in America" is best addressed by making laws that make abortion illegal without exception as the only acceptable tactic, I believe abortion will continue to be common for a very, very long time. That tactic did not work out very well 2 months ago in one of the most pro-life states (see S. Dakota), so can someone offer an argument that it would work throughout the rest of the country?

In the meantime, claiming that your tactic is the only one that works towards the goal of stopping abortion altogether is simply wrong and an utter misrepresentation or lack of the ability to understand an argument. Our opponents must be loving this.

Heather is not an unrepresentative case. The author meets patients who cannot sleep, who mutilate themselves, who exhibit every symptom of psychic distress. Often they don't even know why they feel the way they do. As these girls see it, they are acting like sensible, responsible adults: They practice "safe sex" and limit their partners to a mere two or three per year.

They are following the best advice that modern psychology can offer. They are enjoying their sexual freedom, experimenting, discovering themselves. They can't understand what might be wrong. And yet something is wrong. As the author observes, surveys have found that "sexually active teenage girls were more than three times as likely to be depressed, and nearly three times as likely to have had a suicide attempt, than girls who were not sexually active."

And should all this joyous experimentation end in externally verifiable effects--should girls find themselves afflicted with a disease or an unwanted pregnancy--then (and only then) do their campus "women's health" departments go to work for them. They will book the abortion, hand out a condom or prescribe a course of antibiotic treatment. And then they will pat their young patients on the shoulder and send them back into the world, without an admonishing word about the conduct that got them into trouble in the first place.

Who can hold Duane Wade in check? I can. Despite Scott actually witnessing my slow-motion defensive skills at Biola a few years ago on the court, the stuff that I do held Wade scoreless for 2 games this week.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

I actually agree with virtually everything Scott said here, and I also must admit that many of the criticisms of Warren have been off base. However, I do have two concerns about Warren's decision to allow Obama use of his pulpit.

First, although I agree that you should not have to pass a religious litmus test to join in the fight against injustice, from what I understand Obama did use his opportunity to speak of his faith and convictions. His inclusion and discussion of his faith makes it appear that his pro-abortion choice advocacy, including having his wife sending out a fund raising letter in favor of partial birth abortion, is simply a in-house discussion amongst brothers. In other words, allowing Obama to speak of his faith in that context masks the clear differences in worldviews. If he wishes to limit the discussion on HIV, I would have no concerns.

Second, it seems the main reason Obama was there was to appeal to evangelicals and soften his clear opposition to many things that are Biblically sound. Here is a sample of a Time article describing what Obama accomplished: The invitation works perfectly for Obama. Through his autobiography The Audacity of Hope and his public statements, the Senator had already positioned himself as one of the rare potential Democratic Presidential candidates who can truly talk the Christian talk. Today's speech can only reinforce that impression. Says Collin Hansen, an associate editor at the Evangelical monthly Christianity Today, " I think the Senator's political team, or whoever's making the decision, was smart to associate him with Warren. It suggests that there are Evangelical moderates that they can work with, or reach, or maybe even attract their votes." We should not be interested in helping a politician who will advance the cause of evil if he reaches his goal of the presidency to fool us by "talking our language". If this places Obama one step closer to the White House, I believe it may not be a such a noble idea.

In short, we need to accept the help of others who differ from us theologically and in some ways ideologically if they wish to fight for justice. Nat Hentoff would be welcome to speak about abortion in my church anytime he would like to. However, we need to be careful that we are not, even unsuspectingly, providing one who clearly promotes evil an avenue to do so.

Update: Case in point. This story from the Chicago Tribune. In the approximately 25 paragraphs exactly one discusses the AIDS epidemic. The rest of the story speaks of Obama's attempt to court evangelicals.

Friday, December 8, 2006

The National Post, who doesn't seem particularly pro-life, seems to understand this debate better than any mainstream press that I have encountered. Read the whole thing, but here is a good excerpt:

Pro-Choice, Pro-Censorship

Student governments and student activists (often indistinguishable) do not usually deserve the scrutiny of the national press, on the sensible grounds that imprudent decisions made by novice politicians in the hothouse campus environment are best left ignored. Moreover, as is well known, student governments are usually comprised of a rather small and often radical segment of the student body, the majority of which never bother to vote in campus elections, and pay no attention to what their alleged representatives are doing. Don't blame Carleton students for their government.

That said, CUSA's action is Orwellian, mean-spirited and more than a little weird.

CUSA's policy is aimed at what it calls the "anti-choice" agenda. Their anti-anti-choice solution is to do what they can to penalize students who argue for a different choice. The new policy at least clarifies that CUSA is not "pro-choice" at all, but flat-out pro-abortion. In CUSA's conception, choice means denying students the choice of forming clubs to reflect their interests. It is straight out of Orwell's 1984.

At Queen's University, for instance, the campus pro-life club was re-established recently after many years of inactivity. The issue arose at Carleton when a new club -- Carleton Lifeline -- held a debate on campus and increased its profile. Anecdotally, it appears that pro-life students are more confident of taking part in campus life today.

That makes CUSA's decision, frankly, mean-spirited. To the extent that pro-life students want to organize themselves, it is mark of civic engagement, a willingness to question campus orthodoxies, and of no little courage, given the hostile environment on campus. A vibrant campus should welcome such students. To set them aside for special, punitive treatment fails even the basic test of courtesy, to say nothing of fairness.

Moreover, the CUSA policy is oddly pointless. If the campus is as enthusiastically pro-abortion as CUSA claims, what added advantage is to be gained from this policy, at a serious cost in terms of the university's reputation as a place of debate and free speech?